3 ms·

> I'd be far more willing toss you a penny or two to read the content of a single article. yet empirically, most people wont. And a business model require it w

by chii 1y ago

> I'd be far more willing toss you a penny or two to read the content of a single article. yet empirically, most people wont. And a business model require it work for most people, not just a standout few like yourself. This is even accounting for a proper transaction cost reduction in microtransactions! The reason i say this is because microtransactions _do_ work in other areas - such as gacha games, in-app purchases etc (where the transaction costs have somewhat been minimized but not completely demolished).

kelnos 1y ago
> yet empirically, most people wont. Empirically how? To my knowledge, there's never been a widespread micropayments system that targeted this use case. So how do we know? All we know is that publishers think micropayments would eat into their subscription revenue, and that they want readers to give them personal information so they can spam and track them (something that may not be possible with micropayments). So how do we know this, empirically? I don't think we do.
- chii 1y ago
  > So how do we know this, empirically? as in, because the microtransactions mechanisms already exist, and has been successfully monetized in other areas. The fact that news publishers don't use it (and opt for subscribers instead) is an indication that it doesnt work.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    Well no, it's not necessarily an indication it "doesn't work", that's only one possible indication. It could also indicate that News companies make more money from a tiny number of subscribers than whoever would pay microtransactions, or it could indicate that the News companies BELIEVE that to be true whether it actually is or not. It could also indicate that the news "industry" has been utterly decimated and destroyed and defunded over the past 50 years and they don't really have the cashflow to play around and experiment with business strategies because they are desperately hanging on as it is and have all sorts of data showing them that they will never have the business they had 50 years ago no matter what because the simple reality is that humans prefer listening to a moronic talking head not ask hard questions over actual journalism anyway.
    - chii 1y ago
      > It could also indicate that News companies make more money from a tiny number of subscribers than whoever would pay microtransactions which is exactly what "doesn't work" means - not enough revenue from microtransations compared to another avenue (such as subscription + adverts). > they don't really have the cashflow to play around and experiment with business strategies i suppose that's possible as well - but some news outlets do have sufficient revenue to experiment, and they either hadnt, or have and found it wanting. > not ask hard questions over actual journalism that has nothing to do with the funding model. You're conflating separate concerns - one being a business concern, and one being a civic concern.
  - selfhoster11 1y ago
    Really? Then how do I send half a cent to an arbitrary recipient without having to pay a fee?

by chii 1y ago

kelnos 1y ago

> yet empirically, most people wont. Empirically how? To my knowledge, there's never been a widespread micropayments system that targeted this use case. So how do we know? All we know is that publishers think micropayments would eat into their subscription revenue, and that they want readers to give them personal information so they can spam and track them (something that may not be possible with micropayments). So how do we know this, empirically? I don't think we do.

chii 1y ago
> So how do we know this, empirically? as in, because the microtransactions mechanisms already exist, and has been successfully monetized in other areas. The fact that news publishers don't use it (and opt for subscribers instead) is an indication that it doesnt work.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Well no, it's not necessarily an indication it "doesn't work", that's only one possible indication. It could also indicate that News companies make more money from a tiny number of subscribers than whoever would pay microtransactions, or it could indicate that the News companies BELIEVE that to be true whether it actually is or not. It could also indicate that the news "industry" has been utterly decimated and destroyed and defunded over the past 50 years and they don't really have the cashflow to play around and experiment with business strategies because they are desperately hanging on as it is and have all sorts of data showing them that they will never have the business they had 50 years ago no matter what because the simple reality is that humans prefer listening to a moronic talking head not ask hard questions over actual journalism anyway.
  - chii 1y ago
    > It could also indicate that News companies make more money from a tiny number of subscribers than whoever would pay microtransactions which is exactly what "doesn't work" means - not enough revenue from microtransations compared to another avenue (such as subscription + adverts). > they don't really have the cashflow to play around and experiment with business strategies i suppose that's possible as well - but some news outlets do have sufficient revenue to experiment, and they either hadnt, or have and found it wanting. > not ask hard questions over actual journalism that has nothing to do with the funding model. You're conflating separate concerns - one being a business concern, and one being a civic concern.
- selfhoster11 1y ago
  Really? Then how do I send half a cent to an arbitrary recipient without having to pay a fee?